JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 22-06-2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC) 47 of 2004 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs. 64,800/- in favour of the claimant under the following heads:- Since the only issue involved in this case is as to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to, it is not necessary to discuss the other evidence. 2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant met with an accident on 31-07-2003 and was taken to the Tripurasundari Hospital at Udaipur. He was referred to the G.B. Hospital, Agartala and remained admitted there from 01-08-2003 to 19-09-2003. The discharge certificate also shows that he was diagnosed with fracture of the left femur and fracture on the Colles's (right side). After discharge on 19-09-2003, he was advised to keep his leg in traction and asked to report to OPD after six weeks. Other than this, there is no other medical record. The claimant was a carpenter and he claimed that his income was Rs. 4,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month. 3. After going through the award, I am constrained to observe that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not comprehend the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act nor did he assess the compensation according to well established principles laid down from time to time. 4. It is settled law that when a person sustains injuries in an accident, that person is entitled to compensation for damages/loss suffered. These losses can be categorized in two categories, i.e. pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. Under the head of pecuniary losses are the medical expenses, transportation expenses, attendant charges and all other charges relating to treatment; under the head of pecuniary losses are also the losses of income, if any suffered, and the future loss of income which the claimant may suffer. Where evidence is led to show that medical treatment may be required in future, the Court would also be entitled to pass an award for future medical expenses. Under the non-pecuniary head of damages, the claimant must be awarded compensation for pain and suffering and if there is a permanent disability. The claimant also has to be compensated for loss of amenities of life and future discomfort, if any. Under the non-pecuniary head of damages, the claimant must be awarded compensation for pain and suffering and if there is a permanent disability. The claimant also has to be compensated for loss of amenities of life and future discomfort, if any. In case, the claimant suffers severe disability or disfiguration and the claimant is an unmarried person, then such person can also be awarded damages for loss of marital prospects. 5. Now, I proceed to assess the damages under each head separately. Admittedly, the claimant remained in hospital from 31-07-2003 to 19-09-2003, i.e. for 51 days. The claimant has only been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,256/- for medical expenses. These are only the cash memos of the medicines purchased by the claimant who is an uneducated carpenter. A person belonging to this strata of society does not know that a claim petition can be filed and that he will have to retain each and every receipt with regard to purchase of medicines. At the time when a person like this is seriously injured, the relatives are more worried about getting the injured treated than about retaining the vouchers. Keeping in view the extent of treatment, i.e. 51 days and the fact that the claimant suffered from two fractures and had also received a head injury, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to at least Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses, special diet etc. This will also include the cost of his transportation from Udaipur to Agartala and back. 6. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount whatsoever to the claimant for attendant charges though the claimant had claimed that his family members came and resided at a hotel in Agartala. Even the gratuitous service rendered by the family members or friends of an injured person has to be compensated for by the tortfeasor. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2003. For 50 days, the claimant was admitted in Agartala, i.e. far away from his native village and, therefore, the attendants had to make their arrangement for boarding and lodging also at Agartala. The accident took place in the year 2003 and, therefore, I assess the cost of one attendant at Rs. 250/- per day at the relevant time. The patient in a hospital requires attendants round the clock and, therefore, the cost of two attendants is assessed at Rs. The accident took place in the year 2003 and, therefore, I assess the cost of one attendant at Rs. 250/- per day at the relevant time. The patient in a hospital requires attendants round the clock and, therefore, the cost of two attendants is assessed at Rs. 500/- per day and the cost of attendants alone is assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation under the head of medical expenses is enhanced to Rs. (10,000 + 25,000)= Rs. 35,000/-. 7. Coming to the head of loss of income, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in taking the income of the claimant to be Rs. 1,500/- per month or Rs. 50/- per day. Even a carpenter would earn much more than that even in the year 2003. The claimant has led evidence by examining PW-2 who states that her husband had employed the claimant in his furniture shop and was paying him Rs. 150/- per day. Keeping in view the fact that there may be some holidays, the claim of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month is absolutely genuine and has to be accepted. Therefore, I accept the income of the injured at Rs. 4,000/- per month. 8. The next question which arises is as to for how many months the claimant is entitled to compensation. The learned Tribunal has only awarded compensation for 50 days and has not taken into consideration the fact that even after discharge, the injured was advised to undergo traction and to report back after six weeks. Therefore, at least for 3 1/2 months, the claimant could not have worked. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that a person immediately on his discharge from hospital cannot jump out of the hospital bed and start working from the next date. Such a person will require some bed rest and in this case, there is material on record to show that he was advised to come to the hospital after six weeks. Therefore, the loss of income is assessed for 3 1/2 months which works out to Rs. 14,000/-. 9. Coming to the future loss of income, it is urged by Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel, appearing vice Mr. Therefore, the loss of income is assessed for 3 1/2 months which works out to Rs. 14,000/-. 9. Coming to the future loss of income, it is urged by Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel, appearing vice Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel for the claimant, that the claimant is a carpenter who has to do physical work and that he works with his hands. She, therefore, contends that though in the disability certificate the disability has been shown as 20%, the loss of income is much more. This argument cannot be accepted because the disability certificate clearly shows that the disability is in relation to the leg and not in relation to the hand. Having said so, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that though carpenter may require to work with his hands, he has to physically move around and is required to be agile and physically fit. Keeping in view these factors, I assess the loss of earning capacity also at 20%. If we take the income at Rs. 4,000/-, the loss at 20% comes out to Rs. 800/- per month or Rs. 9,600/- per year. The claimant was 35 years old and as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], the appropriate multiplier would be 15 and, therefore, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,44,000/- on this count. 10. Under the head of non-pecuniary losses, the claimant has been only awarded Rs. 5,000/-. This is like rubbing salt into the wounds of an injured who has remained in hospital for 51 days. The amount is ridiculously low. The compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. 11. The claimant has to live with disability throughout his life. His leg has been shortened and he limps and, therefore, he is awarded Rs. 25,000/- for future discomfort and loss of amenities of life. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. (35,000 + 14,000 + 1,44,000 + 20,000 + 25,000) = Rs. 2,38,000/-. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 64,800/- to Rs. 2,38,000/-. The State has already satisfied the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the respondent-State is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 2,38,000/-. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 64,800/- to Rs. 2,38,000/-. The State has already satisfied the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the respondent-State is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,73,200/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. Send down the lower court records forthwith.